[Lanor Fow]

It's a badly worded law, as any TD who goes to a table and returns with no evidence must have gone to the wrong table. Surely the implication though is with equal evidence we rule MI.

[mycroft]

I think what may have been confused with is the 1♥-(3♦)-X, which is penalty (negative doubles through 2♠ only, per YC booklet).

But seriously, the number of people who get their weak NT defence wrong against us (because we're one of three pairs who play it around here) is very high. They Just Forget. They've been playing together for years, had the agreement for years, but it's been a year since it came up, and... When they get a bad result as a result, we're happy. When they get a good result when they screw up (and they often do, because it's really hard to defend against a bid showing 5+hearts when you have a 9-card fit) we eat it. CD? Hell yeah. Would Wolff think it is, or is this one of the "rare occurrences" where a forget is allowed?

[blackshoe]

You'd have to ask Wolff that question.

[c_corgi]

gartinmale, on 2013-February-07, 10:04, said:

... It does, however, piss me off when the rest of us (myself included) demand to play so many different conventions and then fail to discuss them. What gives us the right to add yes, even takeout doubles without understanding their basic follow-ups?

I doubt that many people are demanding the right to use conventions badly. Using them badly is a step on the path towards (hopefully) using them well. It is not reasonable to expect a player who is keen to experience new and more effective methods to have studied and understood them completely before trying to use them.

[gartinmale]

At the risk of sounding even more obnoxious (I promise I am not a jerk about any of this at the actual table, but this is a Laws forum), why is that not reasonable?

c_corgi, on 2013-February-07, 12:29, said:

I doubt that many people are demanding the right to use conventions badly. Using them badly is a step on the path towards (hopefully) using them well. It is not reasonable to expect a player who is keen to experience new and more effective methods to have studied and understood them completely before trying to use them.

[c_corgi]

gartinmale, on 2013-February-07, 12:39, said:

At the risk of sounding even more obnoxious (I promise I am not a jerk about any of this at the actual table, but this is a Laws forum), why is that not reasonable?

Because experience is part of the learning process. Without the experience of playing the methods players are unlikely to be able to foresee all the implications. Even after considerable experience and discussion unforessen situations can easily arise.

[aguahombre]

c_corgi, on 2013-February-07, 12:29, said:

I doubt that many people are demanding the right to use conventions badly. Using them badly is a step on the path towards (hopefully) using them well. It is not reasonable to expect a player who is keen to experience new and more effective methods to have studied and understood them completely before trying to use them.

gartinmale, on 2013-February-07, 12:39, said:

At the risk of sounding even more obnoxious (I promise I am not a jerk about any of this at the actual table, but this is a Laws forum), why is that not reasonable?

The problem is the word "completely", which is not the standard of most who advocate stronger CD sanctions. Requiring a pair who adopt a toy to know whether it applies in commonly occuring auctions, and to be able to alert/explain what those calls mean is very reasonable. "Completely" goes beyond that, into full understanding of every continuation thereafter, or obscure competitive situations where a different meta rule might conflict.

Many players who bash the CD concept exaggerate what adherents are trying to accomplish.

[Mbodell]

c_corgi, on 2013-February-07, 12:48, said:

Because experience is part of the learning process. Without the experience of playing the methods players are unlikely to be able to foresee all the implications. Even after considerable experience and discussion unforessen situations can easily arise.

Also, this isn't just for esoteric artificial crazy systems, it is also true for new partnerships who have a different basis of what is "normal" or "easy". A lot of people say when someone has a forget that they should be playing a "more straightforward system". But often times what is more straightforward for one partner is not for the other (some of LC standard is much more complicated "for me" than some of the stuff I regularly play; Other things can be completely and equally straightforward but one can forget if this is the partner with which you play straightforward ABC or is this the partner with which you play straightforward DEF). I'm coming up with a card with a new partner right now and one of his comments was "for simplicity let's just do ..." followed by something that for me, based on my experience with playing something else (many somethings else) in that situation, is in fact much more complicated. But if we did what would be more straightforward for me, it would be more complicated for him. So new partnerships will also have similar issues. As will beginners or "bad" players (for any definition of bad relative to the field). As will occasionally "good" players (look at the Under Further Review columns on bridewinners). If we want or need to punish it in the rules, that is one thing, but I think it is unrealistic to pretend it isn't a natural part of the game that will keep happening even if the penalty is very harsh.

[c_corgi]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-07, 12:58, said:

The problem is the word "completely", which is not the standard of most who advocate stronger CD sanctions. Requiring a pair who adopt a toy to know whether it applies in commonly occuring auctions, and to be able to alert/explain what those calls mean is very reasonable. "Completely" goes beyond that, into full understanding of every continuation thereafter, or obscure competitive situations where a different meta rule might conflict.

Many players who bash the CD concept exaggerate what adherents are trying to accomplish.

Certainly I think it would make for a better game if everybody knew their methods and played them to a good standard. But it would be a worse game if there was less diversity of methods and system development. Pet conventions will continue to be used and misused even if regulations prescribe harsh penalties: the only outcome will be an increase in non-bridge results. The cure seems both ineffective and worse than the malady.

[nige1]

c_corgi, on 2013-February-07, 13:13, said:

Certainly I think it would make for a better game if everybody knew their methods and played them to a good standard. But it would be a worse game if there was less diversity of methods and system development. Pet conventions will continue to be used and misused even if regulations prescribe harsh penalties: the only outcome will be an increase in non-bridge results. The cure seems both ineffective and worse than the malady.

Variety is the spice of life. Nevertheless, Gartinmale (even tongue-in cheek) offers sensible advice to beginners, pick-up-partners and players who find it hard to cope with complex methods. Try a simple standard system. Also Wolff sensibly recommends that convention disruption sanctions be relaxed for such players.

[hrothgar]

nige1, on 2013-February-07, 17:23, said:

Try a simple standard system. Also Wolff sensibly recommends that convention disruption sanctions be relaxed for such players.

So, if I start playing bridge in England where most players learn the multi 2♦, Convention Disruption shouldn't apply to my multi openings, however, if I branch out and start playing a natural weak 2♦ opening, then Convention Disruption does apply...

[nige1]

hrothgar, on 2013-February-07, 17:53, said:

So, if I start playing bridge in England where most players learn the multi 2♦, Convention Disruption shouldn't apply to my multi openings, however, if I branch out and start playing a natural weak 2♦ opening, then Convention Disruption does apply...

I hope that the rules of Bridge will become the same everywhere. I accept that is unlikely to happen. If I had my wish that might imply a universal standard system that any two players from anywhere in the world could opt to play. Admittedly, the choice of such a system would also be controversial.

Currently, however, local legislatures determine local rules. Hence they can designate local simple standard systems for local players to fall back on. Many already publish standard system-cards for this purpose -- a welcome service for busy players.

What is simple and natural to you depends, to some extent, on your particular experience. To me multi is familiar and easy. Oh, I'd better be careful... or I'll find myself arguing for the current Tower of Babel

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-07, 10:02, said:

@Rik: That NBO's LC needs to get their head out of their ass.

They did. They have a new LC with a competent chairman.

blackshoe, on 2013-February-07, 10:02, said:

Preponderance of the evidence means just what it says. If the evidence of misbid outweighs the evidence of mis-explanation, then we rule misbid. If the other way 'round, we rule mis-explanation. If it's unclear, we rule mis-explanation.

That's what anybody sensible would understand Law 75C to mean. But that's not what it says. There is no "preponderance of evidence" in Law 75C.

It says:

Quote

but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

This means:

• If there is only evidence that it is a mistaken explanation, it is a mistaken explanation.
  
• If there is no evidence at all, it is a mistaken explanation.
  
• If there is only evidence that it was a misbid, it doesn't say what to do.
  
• If there is evidence that it was a misbid and there is evidence that it was a mistaken explanation, it doesn't say what to do.

Now given the fact that this sentence is clearly meant to tell the TD when to rule misbid and when to rule mistaken explanation, you can make a case that the intention must have been: In cases 1-2 above: mistaken explanation, in all other cases: No mistaken explanation. From a logical point of view, that makes sense. From a bridge point of view, it is bogus.

I wish Law 75C said something like "When the available evidence does not clearly indicate that it was a Mistaken Call, the TD must presume Mistaken Explanation." but it doesn't.

(Note that I am not asking for rock solid mathematical proof. I am asking for a clear indication.)

Rik

[blackshoe]

You can't view a law in isolation; you have to view it in the context of all the laws. The phrase "preponderance of the evidence" occurs once in the laws - in Law 85. In addition, it is an accepted principle of bridge jurisprudence that "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard by which we judge. So the fact that the phrase does not appear explicitly in Law 75C is irrelevant.

[Flem72]

Trinidad, on 2013-February-07, 18:15, said:

This means:

• If there is only evidence that it is a mistaken explanation, it is a mistaken explanation.
• If there is no evidence at all, it is a mistaken explanation.
• If there is only evidence that it was a misbid, it doesn't say what to do.
• If there is evidence that it was a misbid and there is evidence that it was a mistaken explanation, it doesn't say what to do.

I'm not sure you've parsed it correctly. In the American law of evidence, this would be called a "rebuttable presumption." There are different levels of evidence required to overcome the presumption: a "scintilla," a preponderance, beyond a reasonable doubt. This one sounds like a "scintilla" to me: Any evidence of "mistaken call" negates the presumption. I assume further evidence could establish either outcome.

[barmar]

Flem72, on 2013-February-07, 18:46, said:

This one sounds like a "scintilla" to me: Any evidence of "mistaken call" negates the presumption. I assume further evidence could establish either outcome.

I pointed out the problem with this interpretation earlier. It makes the law almost vacuous. The player's claim that he misbid is a "scintilla" of evidence, yet this is precisely the fact that the TD is being asked to judge. it's circular logic.

It's as if a defendent's plea of not guilty were always presumed to establish reasonable doubt in a court -- no one would ever get convicted, and we might as well do away with the legal system. So it's not just the fact that they plead not guilty, but how believable they are when they do so.

I realize that the standard of evidence in criminal court is different from bridge, but I think the analogy is still apt: it doesn't make sense that the existence of a claim itself could be sufficient evidence in deciding whether the claim is true. When Law 21 says "evidence to the contrary", it must be referring to evidence independent of the claim being judged, or it's just silly.

[Trinidad]

Flem72, on 2013-February-07, 18:46, said:

Trinidad, on 2013-February-07, 18:15, said:

This means:

• If there is only evidence that it is a mistaken explanation, it is a mistaken explanation.
  
• If there is no evidence at all, it is a mistaken explanation.
  
• If there is only evidence that it was a misbid, it doesn't say what to do.
  
• If there is evidence that it was a misbid and there is evidence that it was a mistaken explanation, it doesn't say what to do.

I'm not sure you've parsed it correctly. In the American law of evidence, this would be called a "rebuttable presumption." There are different levels of evidence required to overcome the presumption: a "scintilla," a preponderance, beyond a reasonable doubt. This one sounds like a "scintilla" to me: Any evidence of "mistaken call" negates the presumption. I assume further evidence could establish either outcome.

I think that the above part is parsed perfectly fine. In fact, it is exactly the same as what you write. And, of course, I agree with your assumption that further evidence could establish either outcome. But some people don't agree with that assumption and reason the way I continued:

Trinidad, on 2013-February-07, 18:15, said:

Now given the fact that this sentence is clearly meant to tell the TD when to rule misbid and when to rule mistaken explanation, you can make a case that the intention must have been: In cases 1-2 above: mistaken explanation, in all other cases: No mistaken explanation. From a logical point of view, that makes sense. From a bridge point of view, it is bogus.

Why, if we want to write that the burden of proof lies with the misbidding/misinforming side can't we just write that the burden of proof lies with the misbidding/misinforming side? And why, if we require the proof to consist of "independent evidence" don't we write that the evidence needs to be independent? This last one was another point for that NBO's LC: The Laws don't say "independent evidence". They say "evidence". If the lawmakers had meant "independent evidence", it would have been very easy to write it like that. They didn't write "independent evidence", therefore they didn't mean "independent evidence".

I know that this interpretation is bogus in a bridge context. But there is nothing wrong with the logic of such an interpretation.

It would be relatively easy to find a decent wording for Law 75, particularly for the current phrase: "but the Director is presumed...", but it just isn't done.

As a demonstration of the difficulties in the interpretation of Law 75, I will tell what happened in the Dutch Bridge League (the third largest NBO in bridge).

About five years ago, there was a huge conflict over Law 75 as it was written. The TDs and the "Competition Committee" were on one side of the conflict. The national Appeals Committee was on the other side of the conflict. The Appeals Committee took an approach that had some flavor of Bobby Wolff. Their reasoning was:

"You claim to have an agreement. But an agreement that you can't remember is not an agreement. Furthermore, if this wasn't the first time you forgot, you must have an implicit agreement that you can forget. It is unreasonable to assume that this was the first time you forgot this agreement. After all, this could have been the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or nth time. Given all these possible values of n, how likely is it that n equals precisely 1? Therefore, the evidence is overwhelming that this wasn't the first time and hence you are deemed to have had an implicit agreement that you can forget. The implicit agreement was not explained, therefore there was MI.".

All TDs knew that whenever they ruled a misbid, they could start filling out the appeal's form. Their decision was going to be overturned by the AC. At some point, the TDs had had it with this practice. They threatened to go on strike. (The Netherlands is a country where strikes are very rare. Even in cases of threats of massive lay-offs, employees won't strike.)

A committee was formed to try and reach a compromise. They needed to blow the dust of the dictionary and found a word that most people in The Netherlands had never used in their whole live, the verb beklijven. It means something like "to stick" or "to remain". The outcome was that only agreements that had been on the card for more than a year were deemed to have "stuck". Newer agreements could easily be forgotten, and in his explanation the player should mention that the agreement was "nog niet beklijfd" ("not yet stuck").

The conclusion of this story is that the phrase "but the Director is to presume..." is not as clear as we would like it to be. Don't come and tell me that some of these different interpretations are nonsensical. These different interpretations came from top TDs and top players in different NBOs where the NBOs belong to the world top.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2013-February-08, 02:31, said:

IDon't come and tell me that some of these different interpretations are nonsensical.

Well, since you insist, I won't tell you that.

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2013-February-08, 02:31, said:

Furthermore, if this wasn't the first time you forgot, you must have an implicit agreement that you can forget. It is unreasonable to assume that this was the first time you forgot this agreement.

So a consequence of the fact that we're only human is an "implicit agreement"?

[bluejak]

Some years ago I had breakfast with Bobby Wolff, and we discussed his approach to Convention Disruption. One thing was very clear: his main worry was at the top level. It was not his suggestion that his views on Convention Disruption should be adopted lower down the food chain.

fred, on 2013-February-04, 15:30, said:

I can't speak for Wolff, but some players (including me) think that bridge is not much fun when you are told X and Y exists instead (regardless of the result). The bigger the difference between X and Y the worse it gets in my view.

The problem with this approach is that bridge is a game of mistakes. One of the problems with many of the posts in this thread is that they want to treat one type of mistake very differently from other types of mistake. You might just as well say that bridge is less fun when an opponent revokes or leads out of turn. In a way, that is right. But why not just accept such things as rare happenings that disrupt the normal game?

gartinmale, on 2013-February-06, 13:10, said:

In ACBL-land, I would be in favor of (say) a full board penalty the first time a sufficiently experienced pair forgets or misrepresents their agreements and disqualification from the event the second time, and immediate disqualification for any opponents who do not call the director when a pair forgets their agreements. Don't want to risk this? Play SAYC. Theoretically your opponents must know SAYC (since if they lose a convention card or don't have two matching convention cards you can force them to play it - yes, this has happened to me, and we deserved it for only having one complete card between the two of us), so they are not going to be inconvenienced by your agreements then.

How about a three month ban on any player who leads out of turn twice in any three month period? And a second revoke by a player, on the same or different hands, should lead to being expelled from the tournament.

Players make mistakes: it is part of bridge. Over-reaction to that is not desirable.

gartinmale, on 2013-February-07, 10:03, said:

How far do we take this argument? I'd hope at least that everyone can agree the game is better when people know their agreements.

Not everyone. I like players to make occasional mistakes, and unlike the majority here I accept three principles:

• Opponents' mistakes get me more good results than bad
  
• Opponents' mistakes lead to different positions, results, and happenings: that's life
  
• If opponents are going to try to better my score by making mistakes I have to accept that some of their mistakes will benefit them.

Lanor Fow, on 2013-February-07, 11:26, said:

It's a badly worded law, as any TD who goes to a table and returns with no evidence must have gone to the wrong table. Surely the implication though is with equal evidence we rule MI.

Sure it is badly worded: TDs assume it means 'compelling evidence' and do not worry about it.